Millich v. Gutternich

California Supreme Court

Millich v. Gutternich

4 P. 411, 2 Cal. Unrep. 344

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1884

DocketNo. 8169

StatusPublished

This text of 4 P. 411 (Millich v. Gutternich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Millich v. Gutternich, 4 P. 411, 2 Cal. Unrep. 344 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

This action was properly brought under section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the judgment of the court below must be reversed for errors in the proceedings.

[345]*345In the first place, the findings do not support the judgment. No such lease as that set forth in the complaint is found by the court; but, on the contrary, a contract for a lease is found essentially different from the terms of the lease which is declared on, and is the foundation of plaintiff’s action.

There was also error in the ruling of the court found in the fourth bill of exceptions. The plaintiff testified that he was not in the city of Santa Cruz on the twenty-third day of January, 1879. This was material evidence in the case, and it was competent for the defendant to contradict him on this point.

For these errors the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the COURT.

This action was properly brought under section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the judgment of the court below must be reversed for errors in the proceedings.

[345]*345In the first place, the findings do not support the judgment. No such lease as that set forth in the complaint is found by the court; but, on the contrary, a contract for a lease is found essentially different from the terms of the lease which is declared on, and is the foundation of plaintiff’s action.

There was also error in the ruling of the court found in the fourth bill of exceptions. The plaintiff testified that he was not in the city of Santa Cruz on the twenty-third day of January, 1879. This was material evidence in the case, and it was competent for the defendant to contradict him on this point.

For these errors the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P. 411, 2 Cal. Unrep. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millich-v-gutternich-cal-1884.